Buchbinder v. Franchise Tax Board, State of California

Full title: Bruce BUCHBINDER; Elaine Buchbinder, Plaintiffs--Appellants, v. FRANCHISE…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 27, 2000

242 F.3d 380 (9th Cir. 2000)

Opinion

242 F.3d 380 (9th Cir. 2000) Bruce BUCHBINDER; Elaine Buchbinder, Plaintiffs--Appellants, v. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant--Appellee. No. 00-15068. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit October 27, 2000

Submitted October 16, 2000. ²

2 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

D.C. No. CV-99-20973-RMW

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding.

Before PREGERSON, KLEINFELD, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ¹

1 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Taxpayers Bruce and Elaine Buchbinder appeal pro se the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of their complaint challenging the California Franchise Tax Board's assessment of their tax liability. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Because California offers a "plain, speedy and efficient remedy" in its courts for tax appeals, see Jerron West, Inc. v. State of California State Board of Equalization, 129 F.3d 1334, 1338-39 (9th Cir.1998), the district court properly dismissed the Buchbinders' complaint pursuant to the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341. The district court also properly determined that defendant state agency is not a "person" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989), and that it is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, see Mitchell v. Franchise Tax Board (In re Mitchell), 209 F.3d 1111, 1115-16 (9th Cir.2000).

AFFIRMED.